Re: BLURFOs - Hebert

From: Amy Hebert <vanguard.nul>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:21:40 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 06:51:14 -0500
Subject: Re: BLURFOs - Hebert
>From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22.nul>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 05:29:14 -0800>Subject: BLURFOs>We have a real problem. Lately, anything that streaks across a>digital camera lens or video cam is being hailed as a flying>saucer or UFO photo....>Read more about it and see the illustrations at:>http://www.rense.com/general49/blurfo.htm
Please note that the Whittlesea UFO appears to more closely
resemble the images of the bird and insect in the middle range
rather than in the "BLURFO" zone (another name for IFO). In
addition, it is obvious that Mr. Neff has not video-taped,
photographed and analyzed hundreds of IFO images for the last 5
years or he would know where his calculations (what
calculations?) are off. Note that he does not indicate the
dimensions of his "BLURFO" zone - it could be anywhere from an
inch to miles. Images just don't happen according to his
descriptions as I've seen all kinds appear on video as well as
in photographs. There are many more factors involved than just
where the objects appear or at what focal range the image is
captured.
I will discuss this more in a later post and share more images
(photographs, video stills, etc.) I have compiled in relation to
the Whittlesea UFO and now Mr. Neff's "BLURFO's" this weekend as
I have to get to work again.
I'm sure Dr. Maccabee can comment on Mr. Neff's "orb"
photographs as related to the "BLURFO" zone.
A. Hebert